Pay to Play?

Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany just came out yesterday saying the NCAA should allow a college program to pay its athletes for living expenses not covered by their academic scholarship. All the major conferences came out in support today for exploration of some pay for play system, as well as past and current NCAA presidents.

This issued has surely arisen due to the increasing number of scandals and crackdowns on players in recent years mostly in football, but certainly other sports. USC''s football program wasnt the only program impacted by the NCAA punishment handed down in the wake of the Reggie Bush improprieties. The men's basketball program and women's tennis program were also part of the bigger lack of institutional control. In just the last few years we've seen Dez Bryant suspended a whole year for lying about having lunch and working out with Deion Sanders; AJ Green suspended for selling his 2009 Independence Bowl jersey for $1,000, 5 Ohio State players banned for 5 games this upcoming season for selling their own trophies and jerseys, and several key North Carolina players getting suspended a whole season for going to parties in Florida thrown by "agents" and "boosters" or other interactions with agents. Of course there was the biggest penalty of all on USC for inappropriate benefits to Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo, 2 year postseason ban, loss of 10 scholarships for 3 years, vacating wins and their BCS championship.

If you look at what these football players are doing, they aren't involved in betting scandals or point shaving scandals. They aren't throwing games. They are mostly trying to network into their future profession, like all college students, or are trying to get a hold of some cash by selling personal items. None of these athletes are getting rich as a result of their violations.

I have been a big proponent of paying athletes who in turn make money back for the school. Pay the women's tennis team? Not likely. Pay Andrew Luck, the QB at Stanford who surely sold out Cardinal stadium by himself? Absolutely. Shoot Luck should've been given a bonus just for these two plays where he acts more like running back and a safety. SAFETY and RUNNING BACK. The major conferences and schools within in those conferences earn ridiculous amounts of money from licensing and lucrative TV contracts. The reason the contracts and TV deals are so big is because the product on the field is so compelling, which is a direct result of the amazing future professionals. Let's not kid ourselves here, the best players aren't students using football to pay for college. They are using college to showcase their talents to the NFL.

Of course you get two problems. First, not every Division I school can afford to offer an additional $2,000-$5,000 per year it is estimated to cover the full cost of attendance (clothing transportation, etc...). They would cry that it affects the competitive balance. You'd see that cry from the Sun Belt, the WAC and the Mountain West now that Utah, BYU, and TCU are leaving. To that I say, you are already at a competitive disadvantage anyway. Only 30 out of the 120 Div. 1 teams ever have a real shot at winning a championship. The best teams can still only recruit 25 players a year. All the talent still has to spread out. I do not feel like this will change the talent landscape in any meaningful way.

The second problem is that other sports (besides probably men's basketball) are shafted. There is no way they can pay their players, their sports do not generate revenue. Well, those who argue that make my point for me. They can't generate their own revenue. In fact, the only reason some of the sports programs exist is because football and men's basketball pay for them. If you aren't making money for the school, I don't see how a men's soccer player or a women's field hockey player can complain. In those situations you are using your sports to pay for school, theres no real market for your athletic talents after college.

The biggest reason I support pay for play for football players besides the fact they make the universities gobs of money is that they spend 20 hours per week during the season in practice and organized team activities. For ordinary college students who don't play collegiate level sports you would spend that 20 hours working to get disposable income to pay for the things the conference want to pay for now, like new clothes, non cafeteria food, and gas. In order to prevent anymore player suspensions for the stupidest things like selling your little golden football pants charm for beating michigan for 500 bucks, the NCAA needs to allow further compensation for these athletes.

Yep, if you play for Ohio State and you beat Michigan in football you get this as a prize from the University, however you can't sell them until you are out of college, even though they are yours. The system has to change, and i think pay for play is a good step to preventing "scandals" like the Ohio State one.

So what do you think out there? Pay for play for football athletes? No, because schools like San Jose State or Florida International could never pay its players? No, because it's unfair to other NCAA athletes? Or maybe you agree or disagree for a different reason. Comment below!